About The Author

Facebook Discussion

123 Comments

When I started to preach about 3 years ago that trance didn’t exist I was nearly crucified by my fellow colleagues here in NL — After having researched for my thesis how suggestions work and what suggestions are I noticed that this is what I did as a hypnotist.

Now many of my colleagues quote “alleged” fMRI scans. Now the great fun when I tell them how a double blind test is done or imperial research that you then know you cannot even prove trance in an fMRI method because both the subject and/or the researcher are primed and thus impaired from unbiased opinions.
Even more complex some hypnotists state that when you lay down comfortably and narrow that this will induce trance. In that case “EVERY” individual going into an MRI scanner will go into trance and then you can’t prove the opposite. Because when you get into one, your hearing is impaired with ear plugs, your vision is obscured by the aluminium housing (often making you breath deeply, and relax and close your eyes not to panic).
So there’s no fMRI that is out there that has proven trance nor will it ever be proven with todays technology because the suggestive element cannot be taken out of the equation.

Ironically research about suggestion was very intense and well documented from the 1940s-1970s and we see some wonderful experiments where people cried out in pain without being “induced” but merely their perception was mislead by suggestion that they would suffer pain.

A good hypnotist should learn which elements make up a good suggestions and then you can leave all that witch doctoring of inductions aside, except when someone truly believe in hypnosis, then hypnosis is a great convincer to shift their perception.

On the record once and for all: Trance has never been proven to date!
So when you believe in trance and you are an atheist, let me ask you: “why do you believe in trance and not in a god? After all they both remain illusive from the scientific grasp, so either start believing in god or stop believing in trance in order to become consistent.”

Sorry Raymond, but your reasoning is faulty. It proves only that ‘something’ must trigger trance. Trance is real and documentable. No, it is not the same thing as hypnosis. No, it is not necessary for hypnosis – I do hypnosis frequently without it.

However, the ‘suggestion’ element is a part of the trance experience, whether self-induced or induced by another person. Your logic above is faulty. Trance is also inducible narcotically. And IT HAS been demonstrated that it can be induced with suggestion alone – in an MRI, as well as various other means – that suggestion can produce very similar ‘chemical’ and ‘electrical’ shifts as that which occurs with narcotic induction.

This does not dispute what James has said about hypnosis not requiring trance. In fact, there have been strong proponents of this position for 20+ years. However, to deny the existence of trance is to deny a subjective experience, even when there is objective proof of it.

When you say “trance is real and documentable”, what do you mean by ‘trance’?

I totally agree that people can be hypnotised into all sorts of ‘states’, although I am not sure that there is one particular special state that I would be inclined to call ‘trance’ – I would be more inclined to think that there are as many trances as people may care to go into!

BTW, I heard rumour that you may be visiting the UK – if you are, be sure to look me up as we really should catch up for a chat and perhaps a spot of lunch!

Trance, as distinguished from hypnosis, is a state characterized by a ‘dissociated’ mental condition. It generally lacks focus and context. I would also agree that there are countless forms of trance.

And if you don’t like the use of ‘state’ as it applies to hypnosis, how about ‘mental position’? I use the term state to describe a very specific mental position wherein a person is focused (on a conscious level) as nearly as possible, on one specific thing – the hypnotist and what he tells the subject.

The way I typically put it to my classes is “There are an infinite number of kinds of trance. People go in and out of them all day long, every day. However, hypnosis is a very specific ‘event’ that occurs between a hypnotist and a hypnotee wherein the hypnotee is focused on, and accepts the ‘reality’ that is presented to them by the hypnotist.”

I am sure it would be no challenge to tear that apart and find faults in it. But it serves my purposes.

And, yes, I am coming to the UK. And I would consider it a great honor to sit down with you over a meal. I am sure there is much that we can learn from each other.

Jeffrey show me the peer-reviewed science! Then talk to me about faulty logic.

The definition of trance is an altered state that makes a person more suggestible. Science has not found a definite altered state not even in MRI!

Even narcotics do not induce trance they merely disrupt normal brain functions by over flooding neuro receptors with chemicals. Such as alcohol, nicotine anaesthesia components to name a few.

The fact that you are talking about a subjective experience is negating science in the process, science is about objective and testable facts and not “experiences”. When we believe in experiences than we must also believe in God, Ghosts and Goolies.

I make up that you are not a scientist and that you have no experience with exact science.

Jeff S, it’s not an attack it’s merely an observation, especially because here we are discussing the scientific existence of trance. Which has not been proven yet. Even though some people seemingly say so by fMRI results which have not been peer-reviewed or even been repeatable.

Most hypnotists do believe you induce trance and that in turn raises suggestibility. This thought in itself doesn’t hold any scientific proof.
Even when every state is a “trance” state than it doesn’t raise suggestibility (as you also say) but then you do not induce such a state either.

The fact you’ve trained psychologists, psychotherapists says nothing because they are not exact scientists and they where upholding the Freudian ideas of conscious and subconscious way after the exact science has not found any distinction in our brain.
I know that in the US and UK hypnosis is even part of the curriculum here in western-europe it has been scratch out since 1995 by the lack of a scientific bases.

When you study cognitive-or-neuro science you will see how a brain is build up and that breaks down all the foundations of “old-psychology” and “hypnosis”.

I don’t really understand the flow of your argument. Given your mention of faulty logic that surprised me.

I’m not at all sure that science is (only) about objective and testable facts and therefore not experience. Nevertheless, by accepting the distinction between objective (ahem) facts and subjective experience, I think we’re closer to the heart of this problem. (I’ll leave for now the very faulty logic that equates belief in trance with belief in gods or ghoulies.)

Science has not proven or disproved the existence of trance because a) the equipment doesn’t exist and b) trance is not a measurable object like that. Trance, by almost all decent definitions is a phenomenon. Science has not yet managed to discover pain, but their are plenty of god-fearing ghost-hunters who can tell you what a kick in the nuts feels like! 😉

As ‘trance’ is a word used to explain an experience or cognitive process, why would we expect fMRI scans to be able to pick it up? Until we know what a brain in ‘trance’ would look like, what’s the point of scanning anyone looking for it.

Here’s where I think this discussion stalls, simply further dividing the ‘camps’ involved: 1) Old-school hypnotists spoke about trance as a distinct state of consciousness. 2) Then when the techonology developed to scan the brain they and Scientists searched for such things via scans and suchlike. They then declared that Science had confirmed their views. (Whereas, actually, the findings then and now are completely inconclusive and ambiguous, supporting neither side.) 3) Non-state hypnotists and researchers managed to come up with better models to explain their non-state conclusions. 4) Then they should that the scans were not as conclusive as had been claimed. The trouble is that somewhere between 3 and 4, those who utilised the concept of trance used it in far more metaphorical or ‘naturalistic’ ways and were hardly sold on a distinct state of consciousness.

The camps continue to talk past each other and both appear pretty out-of-date.

@Graham neurologists do know how pain works, the fact that levels of pain are subjective is puzzling.

You are redefining trance from the classic hypnosis point of view that it’s an altered state which increases suggestibility. When it is a state then it should be able to be measured. You use the definition trance as a word to describe a process or a personal experience. This negates the state theory.

Exact science is about objective and testable facts otherwise it isn’t exact science. Sure people would love to misinterpret numbers to make them fit their theory but that’s why we have peer-reviews.

The comparison between trance as a state and God holds firm. Because God can exist but we may not have the technology to proof “it”. Same goes for a trance state. But since you can’t prove a negative you use the default position of something doesn’t exist until there’s proof against it.

So where you use trance metaphorically much like the “subconscious” which has not “conscious awareness” you do not adhere to the state theory, so I don’t know what your problem is with my views in which I merely state that there’s no conclusive proof and that indeed psychological processes are the driving force in making people adhere to suggestion.

Thanks for your response, Raymond. I didn’t actually say that neurologists do not know how pain works. I said that they have not ‘discovered’ pain. I was intentionally using the same kind of language which says Scientists have not proven the ‘existence’ of trance. I was essentially saying that brain scans are pointless in discovering trance, in the same way that neurologists are not able to look at a brain scan and say, “Ah, there’s pain.”

Your point about God and trance simply does not stand up. It’s poor logic.

I haven’t said anything about the State theory and I agree that I have defined trance differently to the ‘classic hypnosis’ definition. I think, in fact, that most of those presumed to be holding the ‘classic hypnosis’ definition don’t hold the position that non-trance folk dismiss. (That’s kind my point, that both “sides” talk past the other.)

‘But since you can’t prove a negative you use the default position of something doesn’t exist until there’s proof against it.’

No, I didn’t.

‘Exact science is about objective and testable facts otherwise it isn’t exact science.’

I’m not sure what “Exact science” is, but science is about proving hypotheses. But I think that would take us off on too many tangents.

Where I am going is the same place as always – towards freeing people to be great hypnotists! I know all this seems a little ‘theoretical’, but what we believe shapes what we do.

I will be following this video up, however, and talking about how I often share the secret (that it doesn’t exist) directly with my clients, and how sharing this makes it even easier to get hypnotic phenomena!

James wants to free you from mere limitations of dogmatic thinking. When you know the process (I really like that comparison) you are far more flexible to bend people into seeing in your way.

About 4 years ago I had the following happen to me: After my show a person came to me and said: “You know that hypnosis is all bollocks, I would not fall for it and you seek those people who are open to the idea.” I answered to the guy: “You are absolutely right! You must be very well informed and educated but let this be our secret. You know as well as I do that arm motion like a levitation is caused by mere suggestion evoking ideo-motor reactions and then it’s easy to use suggestion to limit nerve responses and have their hands stick together.” — the guy obviously was not as well educated but he agreed. So I set of demonstrating this to him, since he now believed it was a scientific process he bought into it.
Where indeed arm movement is very simple and a result of ideomotor responses a hand stick isn’t.
However the guy bought into my convincers and thus create a new reality within is own world of “plausibility”.

When I would’ve used a formal induction it would not have worked because in his world inductions do not cause trance because trance doesn’t exist and I would’ve “failed”. Where now he was amazed of the result and had his ego stroked in the process 😀

HI JAMES,
YOU HAVE MADE THIS POINT BEFORE,
IT NOW ASKS US TO BRING OUR THINKING AND UNDERSTANDING OF HYPNOSIS INTO 2011 WHICH IT NEEDED TO DO, AS WE ARE ALL STUCK IN OUR OLD WAYS OF THINKING.(AGREED)
WE SHOULD LOOK AT OUR WORK MORE AS
:A FASCILITATOR OF USEING ANY ALTERED STATE SHOWN BY THE CLIENT TO ENRICH THAT EXPERIENCE AND WORK WITH IT FOR A POSSATIVE OUTCOME.

Still on the subject of “James Tripp live from the heart of the Orion Nebula.” I think there is more truth in your statement than meets the eye… or heart… or where we communicate from!

I also think we are forgetting that we no longer live in the same place we did 100 years ago. So much has changed in terms of human consciousness. We are pretty much a different species in terms of education, technology, the way we think, act and feel as humans.

Our beliefs about the world, the solar system the universe and cosmos has shifted so much that we as humans are operating from, and at a totally different vibration to that of our grand parents our great grand parents, and in my case parents.

We are far more advanced in the way we communicate now; we have a greater understanding of technology for instance. Children are born with the computer gene. Three year olds can naturally work the remote and mobile devices with out being shown.

We now communicate differently in so many ways. And we are far better at it. We know more about it. We are smarter more intuitive. We have evolved. Or the youth have. The old guard are still saying the same things they believed in ten, twenty or one hundred years ago.

As an example – Ritchard Bandler and all the other forward thinking high profile NLP’ers are telling a different story than they did only a few years ago.

Information is now out of date by the time we read about it… And that includes the use of what used to be called Hypnosis or Trance etc and it may be a good time the find a new language that brings this new way of thinking up to date, so it does not get mixed up with the old paradigm.

Hypnosis with out trance feels like a bridge term between the old and the new, so I like the way you are updating the old technology and moving with the shift into the newer frequencies that humans are vibrating at James…

Hi James, I like your take on the non-trance state. I am a Christian and also trained in stage & street hypnosis. I tell people all the time a good preacher can induce a shift in perception without a trance state. Trust & rapport is everything.

James, I’m of the opinion that you are creating a non-sequitur. Or, more precisely, you are creating a false dichotomy (a distinction without a distinction.) You are assuming that to consider hypnosis a state is to automatically limit how one learns and uses hypnosis.

Hypnosis DOES exist. Hypnosis is what occurs when a person’s awareness / focus / attention is reduced to the point that he or she suspends reality for a time, to accept the instructions (I don’t do suggestions) of the hypnotist. The ‘imagination’ is engaged to the point of accepting the words of the hypnotist as fact, even when it is contrary to ‘reality’.

Now that is a simplification, I know. And I could easily expand upon it. But it draws attention to a specific point that I am making. I do not deny, in any form, that we should draw upon sales, marketing, influence, etc. to improve our skills. You make very valid points as to the value of ‘using every tool at your disposal’ (this is how I express it) to enhance and improve ones skills. It is your conclusions that are tainted by your own biases.

I DO like what you do and teach. I have respect for how you have helped many to make that step into the hypnosis world. I wish you all the best in your endeavors. However, I just had to address this. I would be happy to discuss it further if you would like.

In that case the big question is: “Isn’t hypnosis the same as suggestion?” Which I think is the case.

When we suggest something and we can show “apparent” truth of that fact people will believe it. Other people call this misleading and misdirecting which I think is a better name.

Hypnosis is chosen as wrong as trance and subconscious. When you study cognitive psychology or neuro-science you will instantly see that hypnosis is a hoax created by people with extremely poor insights in brain neurology and even psyche.

If you want to adopt a trance model than the only right way is to call any state a trance state…. In that case you do not instill a “trance” you shift a state.

Actually, no. Hypnosis is a mental position wherein a person ‘suspends reality’ for a time to accept the ‘suggestions’ (if you like that word – I don’t) being given.

When I have a subject in hypnosis I have no need, at that point, to ‘show “apparent” truth of that fact.’ What I tell the subject is taken AS fact. This varies to a degree based upon how well I have done my job of ‘narrowing the focus’ of the subject. When this is properly done, I state the ‘fact’ that I expect the subject to accept, and he or she does.

Your assertion as to what WILL occur ‘when’ I study cognitive psychology or neuro-science is absurd. I have trained psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, etc. from all over the world. I have yet to find one that would accept that position. Are you suggesting that your ‘insight’ is the only valid one?

And your claim that there is only one right way understand and name every state is absurd on the face of it. That is YOUR position, which does not make it the defacto standard. It merely makes it your position. And I am a firm believer that if your position allows you to do the most for people and remain congruent, then that is what you should do. It does not, however, define it for anyone else. I know some hypnotists who disagree with me on any number of points. This does not diminish the value of what they have accomplished simply because they didn’t “believe” or “do” things my way.

@ Jeff – I think that is a good point Jeff and a wise stance. I believe that if one wants to start a new model then really it needs a new name and that is what happened with NLP, and I also believe that needs updating in some way, becasue it has moved on so much over recent years. This probably fairer on people who are happy doing what they do and do well..

Each new generation of moble phone seems to have a slightly different name to the last one.. and so on. I still have my old moble and like it. It’s simple.. it works.. And it has it benifits and limitations.

I use what I feel is useful at the time and do not give it handles if I can avoid it. Rather I focus on how different the client feels and what it did for them. David

Yes Steve, it is possible and I have done it any number of times. It is not my norm. I love inducing trance in the middle of the process so that the subject has a subjective experience to refer back to. Makes them feel good, and makes it entertaining for me.

I don’t actually have a separate ‘Stop Smoking’ book or video. I just put all of it in my course. But I guess it is something to think about.

Jeff & James,
Thanks for the replies. I don’t know your stance on Christianity, but have you ever thought about combining God’s word with Hypnosis. If we are planting seeds of thought into people’s subconscious “soil” with our words.
Using God’s words which I believe are “alive” will result in a bigger change. Using man’s words vs. God’s words is like planting Candy Corn vs. Real Corn
which one will grow? I am a novice hypnotist but this is what I plan to start using with people I get to wok with. thanks – steve cummings (46) 256.736.4028 cell

I know that this is a question for Jeff, but smoking cessation without ‘trance’ is more than just possible, for me it is the best way to do it!

For smoking cessation, I prefer to use ‘influence and persuasion’ strategies to herd the client through the gate of becoming a non smoker, then use ideodynamic work to reduce or eliminate the ‘cravings’.

Jeff, I think that whenever we take a fixed position on something, it limits how we learn and use it – so I disagree that I am creating a false dichotomy.

Every belief limits in some ways and liberates in others. The models we use shape our actions. For me, I get more milage from considering hypnosis as a process than a state – it enables me to be more direct in taking people into hypnotic experiences.

BUT I have no desire to be a fascist about this, there are workable models of hypnosis that are based in the ‘state’ frame, and some are pretty good, but as I have said before – and to paraphrase John Grinder – when you change the way you talk and think about things, you change your choices and you change your results.

Great video. It’s funny how much I can agree with and disagree with at the same time!

Here’s what I find interesting…. A definition of hypnosis that you might be familiar with, describes it as ‘the engagement of a person’s beliefs and imagination in creating for them an altered subjective reality.’ The funny thing is that ‘engagement with an altered subjective reality’ fits lots of people’s definition of trance. Given that you trained with Stephen Brooks, as did I, then I’m sure you know this.

If the T in HWT refers simply to a distinct altered state of consciousness that makes one more susceptible, then I’m with you. But since Erickson, who has limited it in that way? I would suggest that Grinder and Rasmussen offer a nice middle-ground between the old view and the naturalistic views of the Erickson-Brooks camp. (That’s assuming that Grinder and Rasmussen aren’t being completely literal in their frequent use of ‘state’.)

Either way, I’m happy, ‘cos I get to keep speaking about trance whilst still utilizing your offerings. Cheers! 😉

Whilst “the engagement of a person’s beliefs and imagination in creating for them an altered subjective reality” may be my words…

“Engagement with an altered subjective reality” are not. The latter is something different from the former. But putting that aside…

Now, an altered subjective reality could be classed as a ‘state’ but it is not THE state of hypnosis – a state that renders the person more open to suggestion.

And why call that state a ‘trance’? I guess if it has useful connotations there may be a reason for it. (I sometimes use the term myself when communicating with hypnotists, and I want to utilise the connotations of that word has for many hypnotists.)

The T in HWT does refer to a specific (and, I would suggest, mythical) state of ‘trance’ (or sometimes just ‘hypnosis’) that many hypnotists subscribe to as being the fundamental ‘engine’ of hypnosis – the special state that renders the subject susceptible to suggestion.

I do not believe that such a distinct and special state exist, and I also believe that believing in such a state is more of a hindrance than a help to the hypnotist (and often to the ‘hypnotee’ also).

The HWT approach is to take the subject directly into the desired experience, rather than into some generic ‘trance’ state first.

My approach may fit some people’s definition of ‘trance’, and I wouldn’t want to argue with that. But I would say that to limit it in such a way is not useful to me.

Why ‘trance’? If I can take a client there I can take them anywhere, so why ‘trance’?

it was my own experience with hypnosis that made me interested in HWT. A long time I had associated hypnosis with trance – doing all sorts of inductions to get people into trance (I learned hypnosis from Anthony Jaquin, btw., and hypnotherapy from his father, Freddy). This association was disturbed when I talked to my girlfriend (who I hypnotized many times before) and told her that she just can’t move her right arm – and she couldn’t. She was amazed and told me: “How comes that I can’t move my arm – I’m not in a trance!”. And she wasn’t. And I was as much amazed as she was.

Next time I did some pain cure with hypnosis, which worked very well. Two days after this she phoned me and told me that she thought that she had misinterpreted my instructions during hypnosis, that she hadn’t done it right – and the pain just came back!

Now we couldn’t see each other for the next few weeks, and knowing that she was in pain and couldn’t barely walk made me thinking – I told her that I would repeat the process over phone. Now putting her into a trance over phone was out of the question, because she associates hypnosis with a deep relaxing trance, and she can’t hold onto the phone and be deeply relaxed at the same time. So I told her that I will do some “wake hypnosis” (I just invented that term when I was on the phone), did a hand stick with her, and repeated the process, taking care that it doesn’t matter how she followed my instructions. And it workesd without a trance, and the pain was gone for good! At that time I didn’t know a thing about HWT. But I thought: “What the heck – hypnosis works without a trance!”.

Now, after I’ve studied your material, I think that I found out independently that a trance is not necessary. And my initial confusion about that is now over. After I’ve seen you doing your stuff I did a name amnesia (which I hadn’t done before with her) over the phone and it workes like a charm. Its a great relief for both of us that I can do the pain cure over the phone without a trance. So if her pain ever comes back (which hasn’t happened since) I know what to do.

I still do trance work with her, when I’m with her, but I will soon shift my psyhotherapy work to HWT. Trance is nice, but that’s all to it. If someone expects that hypnosis is about trance I will use a trance, just as one of the many tools.

Now to the scientific stuff. I think that trance is a different state from the normal waking state. If you think that hypnosis is the same as trance and you put people into a trance, of course, a brain scan might show a difference to the normal waking state. And I don’t think that this will be the case if you use HWT. But as far as I know you can, for example, measure a different state of mind when you read a book as opposed to when you drive a bicycle, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise when you measure a trance, or a sleeping, or a waking state, that it will be all different. Because what you do will and must be reflected by a change in your brain activity. So, indeed, the question if hypnosis is a different state of mind is moot. Of course, different things will happen in your brain if you move your arm or can’t move your arm – otherwise, the same will happen with your arm. Same activity = same brain state, different activity = different brain states. I think that goes without question.

I think that your definition that “hypnosis is a shift in perception” is true. As I see it, it is a from of expectataion and association. For example, I do the sticking fingers, and as we all know, this has nothing to do with hypnosis. Now the movement of the fingers is associated with what I told the subject, and she or he is now expecting that this will continue, for example, with the hand sticking. We know that expectation can change physiology. We are used to the western myth that mind and body are two very distinct things, but I think that this is a big mistake. So when I tell someone that something is going to happen, and I’m believable, than this will happen, because the fullfilling of the ecpectation is associated with me telling my subject about it. So if I had somebodys hand stuck to the table, he will associate that my words have come true – guess what she or he will think if I claim that his name is gone. The subjects perception follows the expectation that something crazy is going to happen, because I told her or him that something crazy is going to happen.

Here is my favourite hypnotic language pattern:

“Now, as you hear my voice, you might not be feeling your weight on your feet, until I told you. But now you notice it, because I told you.
You might not think about your breathing right know, until I told you. Now you cant’ help but notice your breathing because I told you.
You might not go into a trance, until I tell you”

…which of course implies: And you will go into a trance because I tell you to do so!

I lead the expecation to a point where the subject can’t help but thinks: “Man, whatever he tells me is going to happen”. This, of course, hasn’t to be a trance, it could be the hand stuck on the floor, because she or he expects that the hand will stick if I tell it to stick, because this is associated with what happened. If I tell you the truth ten times, will you expect me to lie on the next occasion? If I tell you ten times what is happening to your perception, will you think that I will be completely wrong on the next thing I tell you?

I apologize for my bad english, I’m from germany, but I hope that this will make sense, in spite of my awfull grammar.

And the knife might cut both ways; If you are convinced that you need a trance to do hypnosis, this expectation might be true, just because you think it must be true! Your subject thinks that weird stuff will happen, because she or he expects it to happen, and we are not in a different position: We expect trance, we get trance! We expect that hypnosis won’t work without a trance, and that is a self-fullfilling prophesy. Now, who is the hypnotist, and who is the hypnotee? Who has fallen for a suggestion, and who is more suggestible?

This reminds me of a joke that must be as old as psychology. Says one rat to another: “I have trained my professor very well – whenever I press this button, he will give me food”. And the joke is on us: The rat is right!

I think that hypnosis without trance has opened a new world to me. It is very exciting: I’m about to deliver a speech about hypnosis (with some practical demonstrations), but I have to rework all I’m going to say. Discovering something new is always a very satisfying thing.

I actually agree that an altered subjective reality could be classed as a ‘state’ but it is not THE state of hypnosis’. Part of what I was getting at was that a lot of time and energy is being spent dismissing something that I’m not sure many people believe in. I think the whole thing might be a bit of a red herring (on both sides).

I think there are some very positive reasons to call it ‘trance’. My background, before therapeutic work, was in community development and inter-faith dialogue. I learned back then that the *experience* of trance is something that a lot of people are very familiar with. In fact, many people find trance beneficial in and of itself.

Of course some people don’t. And for those folks I wouldn’t use the word, even if I was a “classical hypnotist”. It’s all about utilisation for me.

Your comment about the ‘engine’ was helpful. And I can see how removing that idea can be helpful. If a hypnotist was relying on “trance” and trance alone to make suggestions work, they would be missing a treat. (And I’d say that’s where your approach comes into its own.) Yet, if they learned to utilise the experience as a tool they would find it of great benefit, particularly for therapeutic reframes and suchlike. Why risk missing that, because of an insistence to reject something that may not be what the other ‘side’ are really talking about anyway.

Hi james, i love your stuff, i have trained with Anthony Jacquin and played with this stuff and magic for a few years now and i know it is all about belief and expectation, this may be of interest, i have a relative and a few years ago he had part of his brain frozen for tests for an operation for epilepsy, during this test he could hear himself singing but couldnt stop, in my mind this equates to my own experience of feeling my arm raise all by itself………. I keep telling people that belief is the most important thing there is for a human. All the ins and outs of putting that into words baffles me a bit. I have a question, do you think that the person must believe you are a hypnotist, or more in Anthonys style The Hypnotist, to succeed in getting phenomena such as hallucination?
Dave

I don’t think it is necessary to be the/a hypnotist, but I do think that the person needs what I call a ‘big because’. What this is can differ – I often frame things as being about ‘the power of the mind’ and sometimes about ‘energy’ or ‘chi’.

So long as you give a reason for the phenomenon that is plausible within the subjects worldview, you should be good to go (if they are a good subject).

I have been studying hypnosis for a year and have gravitated twards the likes Jeff Stephens, Anthony Jacquin, Barry Thain and James Tripp for who I feel has given me the best explanation into the process of this phenomena we call ‘hypnosis’ until now. Why start now in trying to prove whether or not trance exist? Its like tryin to prove a atom exist. We can show the effects of an atom and use formulas to explain and atom. We can use math equations to sqaure in our logical rational mind that atoms exist, but in the end all we have done is come up with a more concise model to prove or explain what we cant prove. One day someone else will come along and have a whole other scientific way of explaining the same concept with an even further indepth formula and will have taken it even further and will have given us more of an understanding to satisfy the logical mind. More explanations or models still doesnt prove or disprove anything. All we can do is use meauring instruments to gauge the effects of phenomena and put them into theory bound by laws. We will do this until it satifies our logical rational reasong mind. In the end it all comes down to OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. We could all free out mind and just use the model hypnosis doesnt exist and it would eliminate alot of problems from the hypnotist because now he has excepted its nothing more than role playing and social compliance. James Tripp has quenced my thirst to know what is really happening in the mind and has taken me all the way down the rabbit hole to tell me in the end that ‘ignorance is bliss’. So free your mind everyone and just except that TRANCE DOESNT EXIST! Or just except the model that satifies your logical mind enough to be good hypnotist.

You know since Kreskin ‘proved’ that hypnosis does not exist was only suggestion in a US court in the ’60s there have been so many people jumping on the band wagon including ‘ He who shall not be named ‘.

James I had higher hopes for you.

You’re argument is flawed from the start.

Saying, ‘Hypnosis doesn’t exist,’ is like saying love doesn’t exist, or hate, or lust or any other of the words we use to describe an emotionally based cause and response system. None of them exist in the way that say a house brick, or a bridge, or a plant cell, or a molecule of uranium have existence.

The argument therefore should perhaps be that ‘Hypnosis has no existence.’ Which semantically at least is accurate.

However it is also totally useless as when certain belief systems within the mind are fired the phenomenon which we can label hypnosis happens. No matter how much we change it’s tag or poke it or explain what is happening in the hundreds different ways we can do so.

As a marketing tool and establishing yourself as an ‘Expert’ goes then I guess it’s a good piece of work, if you are aiming it at wannabee hypnotists. However if you say that to the average human type person in the real world they will nudge your elbow and wink because They Know Hypnosis Exists and they KNOW you are just being devious and mysterious because thats what they Expect Hypnotists To Be.

I’ve often used it over the last 30 years as a reverse psychology icebreaker. Which of course is what this is. Well done.

I think that you have missed my point. The reason I put ‘THING’ in capitol letters and single quotes was to highlight something about our tendency to look for a singular ‘thing’ when looking for hypnosis – i.e. the unique and special state that is oft referred to as ‘trance’.

There is a big difference between saying:

“There is no such thing as hypnosis”

and

“There is no such ‘THING’ as hypnosis”

It is a rhetorical device, not a statement of fact. I am suggesting that what we observe as hypnosis is a complex phenomenon not a simple singular thing.

AS A POINT ASIDE I must, however, disagree with your comparison of hypnosis to emotional/physical states. I do not think that hypnosis is in any way like ‘love’, ‘hate’ or ‘lust’ – these are things we feel; it is their phenomenological character that defines them. Are you saying that hypnosis is a feeling?

Anyhow’s, I would suggest that you hold back from proclaiming an “argument” flawed until you have clarified your understanding of it (not that I had ever considered myself as making an ‘argument’ in the first place).

For me, hypnosis just isn’t a feeling or even anything like one. Sure there are feelings attached to hypnotically induced experiences, but that is something else entirely. (no signature feeling, and certainly no feeling that hypnosis is quantitively identical with).

“Sorry but saying there is no such thing as hypnosis is exactly the same as saying there is no such THING as hypnosis.”

Yes, but it in not the same as saying there is no such ‘THING’ (note the single quotes) as hypnosis, so don’t be sorry Jon. It’s all about what is suggested/connoted… surely as a hypnotist you must get that?

If it makes you feel better, yes I am saying that “Hypnosis is not a thing”… but I am using a rhetorical device as my headline to hint at this.

“There is no such thing as hypnosis” is half of a phrase that Bandler and Grinder used when training together, and is the subtitle of the book “Monsters and Magical Sticks” by Stephen Heller – I am riffing on that for effect…

It also has a greater impact because it is closer to the way YOU interpreted it, so it draws interest. So, to re state:

IT IS A RHETORICAL DEVICE, NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT!!!!!!

If that’s over your head Jon, that’s fine – just understand that my position is as you say:

Hypnosis is not a thing (specifically, a simple, singular, clearly definable thing).

Hi James
Ive just read your report and I think your absolutely right. I think it says it all pretty much. I’m not going to get into the argument of wheather trace exists or not because I think everyone seems to have their own definition of what it means. But I think the main thing you do James is take our attention off of looking for some physical body movement or state and get and gets us to focus on what happening on the inside. Its like your saying not are they relaxing and following suggestions but do they believe what I am saying. Love the loop idea and youve just filled in so many gaps for me. In my opinion you are the like the new Milton Ericson pushing hypnosis forward. Great work.

After watching the video, reading all the comments, and putting some thought into all of it my first reaction is: Huh? There’s a lot to wrap a befuddled amateur hypnotist’s mind around.

How about this? There is no such thing as hypnosis; there is such a thing as hypnotizing. There is no such thing as love; there is such a thing as loving. There is no such thing as depressed; there is such a thing as depressing.

And the main one: There is no such thing as an unchanging stateof mind; there is such a thing as a fluid process of awareness. By focussing on hypnosis as a process there is no “state” that needs to be targeted to achieve the phenomena (changework, handstick, or whatever). By NOT focussing on a specific “state” the limits inherent in that frame of mind disappear. Ergo, vis a vis, ipso facto, add a couple of homonym attacks and I’m done.

I never wanted to take place in an exchange as this on an internet billboard again, mainly because of the time it absorbs with seldom resulting in anything constructive, yet it seems I am posting here now, so it’s never say never again, *Duh* 🙂

So here is my 5 virtual cents:

Korey has added a valuable thought to this, but ultimately it boils down to this:

The main problem with the whole “thing” thing (and also the -marketing wise very clever- term “hypnosis without trance” is the lack of proper (scientific or at least properly descriptive) definition.

You cannot (scientifically) falsify the existence of anything you have not properly defined.

And a proper definition in this discussion is lacking for the term hypnosis as well as trance used in this “discussion” (which is more an exchange of opinions and beliefs).

As long as the terms are not defines as a ground for a discussion you will always end up with people talking about different things while using the same terms.

Lets take the term “trance” for example.
A term which has seldom if ever been defined methodically clean.

There is a very good scientific work by german psychologist Joerg Buettner where he -scientifically methodically correct- defines trance.
It is called “Trance- Scharlatane und Schamanen- die Psychologie aussergewöhnlicher Bewusstseinszustände” translates (leaving out the marketing sales pushing subtitle that has hardly anything to do with the content) to : “Trance- the psychology of extraordinary states of conciousness”. Unfortunately AFAIK only available in german.

What Joerg Buettner did is, he collected descriptions of most of the scenarios being connected to “trance” (extraordinary states of conciousness) (like: religious trance, schamanic trance, extacy, obsession, hypnotic trance and some more), then looked up all the definitions he could find for trance(and dismissed all of them because they all did not cover the phenomenons that claim to be connected to trance)and then used the psycological “PSI” model of Dörner (which is a very abstract model of the function of the human thought process, with the core idea of using as few variables as possible to describe human motivation, thought process and behaviour–) to find a definition of trance that covers all the described phenomena connected to the term.

He did that very logically and methodically, and to make it short he came up with something like this (hopefully translated accurately by me):
“Trance: a phase of experience, in which the logging of events is happening with a low level of resolution. This low level is induced by 3 possible techniques of delivering or withholding stimulus. Connected to the low resolution of event logging is a high threshold of selection and a strongly reduced level of self reflection. The result of this are abstract memories, sometimes leading to amnesia.”

I found his work very enlightening, since it explains all the common phenomena and also the different kinds of induction (define: techniques of delivering or withholding stimulus that lead to trance, described in the book in detail and explaining all possible “inductions”(and I mean not only the “hypnotic” inductions) out there ).

Now with this proper definition of trance, I can draw the conclusion: “Hypnosis without trance” uses trance. It may not use the cliche commonly assumed to be trance– but it uses what trance is – following Buettners definition- without doubt.
On the other hand– the word “hypnosis” needs definition also, especially since Buettners definition of trance covers pretty much also most things attributed to “hypnosis” 🙂

BTW. “Hypnosis without trance” is ultimately what was covered in the history by the term “waking hypnosis” (which was a clever semantic to label an extraordinary response of a subject as “hypnotic” even without the “trance” assumed to be normally needed for “hypnosis” at that time– while all these terms remained undefined leaving room for all kinds of misinterpretation).

Oh– and James, aside from the “discussion”:
I think I was one of your first customers and must state that Your “Hypnosis without trance” has become my favourite induction, it is a well paced symphony of communication that never fails me . With- or without trance. And with- or without- believing in a “thing” called hypnosis (see picture again for reference).
And it is very very usable, no matter if working as a “professional belief system enhancer” or, for fun, as a “entertaining belief system operator”.

Ithink that he published it as a book on demand, as a lot of scientific books are these days.
So it could be that he holds all rights, and it might be a good idea to just ask him.
I had email correspondence with him, I will mail you his email (won’t post it here as I fear that would iinvite spam to his account).

James, for clarification I am using the argument to mean In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or “propositions”) known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or “proposition”) known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises. Not a row as it appears you may think my meaning was. 😉

I get that Jon, I am trained in formal logic. AND what logic doesn’t take account of is connotation… which I think is a much more powerful tool to the hypnotist than pure logic. (‘Argument’ carries a particular connotation that ‘proposition’, say, does not).

My video was not an attempt to assert a logic based proposition, it was a rhetorical riff around a theme.

Logic is a useful tool, but it only goes so far! (kind of like hypnosis!)

I like the way you think and approach to hypnosis. In general I believe yours it’s a good attitude to have, putting nominalizations aside and going deeper (and deeper 🙂 into what’s behind. I got your course and can see how you apply this attitude and the results you’re getting. I believe you’ll get very far if you keep going that way. Please keep sharing what you learn with us. I’ll be looking forward to it.

Great video! love the background effect!..Have to say that I don’t believe in the idea of hypnosis, but I do enjoy watching these videos.
The way I see it is, People change their perception of reality all the time anyway, and aren’t all states of mind special? I think the reason why clean language is used so much in hypnotic scripts is because the person claiming to be a “hypnotist” just doesn’t know!… I don’t see the idea of hypnosis being any different to storytelling, acting, singing etc.. (Other performance arts) to me, hypnosis is very similar to a mcguffin.

From these discussions I have been thinking about this whole ‘thing’ called hypnosis and the comparison made to emotions. If you look at the whole process of how emotional neuro path begins with a outside stimulus makes the body mind connection a physical changes manifest this response travels back to the cortex and registers in the cortex as a “feeling”. Crying is a great example of a physical reaction to an emotional state. I bet if a race of aliens who dont share our human behavior such as crying would think its really weird to see water pouring out of orfices in our body for the very first time seeing it. Kind of a strange response isnt it? Or how about if you come from a race of people who never sleep and you then seen a person lay down and go comatose for 8hrs would be a strange sight as well. People cry for love, hate, fear and so forth and so on. So I think Jonathon Chase made a great parallel. ‘trance’ looks like really weird ‘state of mind’ that can be caused by various outside influences just like crying can be caused by reality or just a good movie or a book. Crying or trance is a state of mind or shift in mind that is fired off or triggered. Just high anticipation can trigger that alien looking emotion called ‘trance’. Yes I called it an emotion: “Emotion is the complex psychophysiological experience of an individual’s state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental and environmental (external) influences”‘ Now with that all said, follow now, If I am a ‘Salesman’ and I want to draw apon all my resources to accomplish the said goal, I would want my client in the right mind state. I would try to elicit a response that would reach the said goal. Would I use every tool, technique,mindset attitude perspective to cause a shift in the clients mind in order too gain a physical response? Hell yes! just like Im not gonna make some one cry by telling them a joke. Because I want to use the method that will elicit the response Im lookinjg for. I dont have the scientific means of showing the emotional neuro logical path ways of petides and chemicals taking place the same way I cant show you all the atoms vibrating in table. All we can do is observe the responses and hypthosis as to what is taking place. Now on to models. Some salesman rely on their ‘Mojo’ to be a good salesman or then need to be in their favorite boxer shorts and bein the ‘zone’ to be on the top of there sales game. When they ‘feel it’ they are HOT! Then there are those who do sales by soley using a metal chess game with their clients and dont have an emotional bone in their body. To each his own! Anthony Jacquin said “Reality is Plastic” because it is. We form our mind around the ideas that shape the outcome we come to expect. Eventually we buy into these models and make them our reality and profess it as so. Sorry Im not a masterbating intellectual just a simple mind and perhaps thats the reason this is ‘OVER MY HEAD’. “All I know is I know nothing”.

You want to get your subject/client into the right mind state… but right for what? It is dependent upon the context and the individual.

I am not saying that hypnosis doesn’t alter peoples states – it clearly does. I am saying that hypnosis itself is not a state. So to take an analogy on this…

If I go into the experience off a enjoying steak and chips, my state will alter. But that doesn’t mean that eating steak and chips is a specific altered state.

Now, this is not “intellectual masturbation”… it makes a practical difference! If I eat in a restaurant, there is no requirement for the chef to come out of the kitchen an do a eating trance induction on me before serving the food, just as there is no need for a hypnotist to induce ‘trance’ in order to facilitate an experience that has nothing to do with that state.

When you realise that ‘trance’ has nothing really to do with hypnosis, you become free to focus in on facilitating more specifically tailored experiences for the client rather than taking them needlessly into some generic experience first. You have a choice!

Now, to be clear, I am not anti trance induction. It is good to learn inductions and sometimes it is good to use them (ritual is a powerful thing), but it is good to have a choice. In Japan they have a tea ceremony, but they know that they can drink tea without it if they just need to quench their thirst. Most hypnotists DON’T know that they can dispense with trance inductions and take people direct into the experiences that are desired.

Hi James,
You appear to have opened the proverbial can of worms! I have always believed in the old saying ‘man is not shaped by events but by his interpretation of them’. I have always adopted that thinking in my approach to hypnosis as it is applicable to both myself and the client, hence I do the work when I believe the person is ready to accept it without looking for a trance state.
Keep up the good work
Bob

Okayy James seeing as all this is above my head I guess I’ll leave it alone. Even though we are as you now way more in agreement than we seem to be here, I’ve ben writing hypnosis isn’t trance since the mid 90s

However doing a hypnosis show or hypnotising in the street, bars, parties or the classroom inducing trance is what I teach because it is what the person seeking hypnosis expects in my experience. And I’ve lost count of the number of people who, even though they were ‘cured’ felt disappointed because they feel they were not ‘hypnotised’. And in my experience without this they are the people who eventually talk themselves out of the reality they leave the operator with. That could take some time so doubtless the operator marks that down to success.

Whydo I say oporator? Because a ’tist’ is someone who does something and we can’t call them a hypnotist because a ’tist’ is someone who does something and if hypnosis is a process then nothing is being ‘done’… and how can you be a better Hypnotist if what you are aiming at has no prescribed or recognisable ‘results’? No actual definition that can be recognised? If what you are doing has no pattern wouldn’t it really be like a chimp smashing hell out of your banjo and calling that ‘music’ because sounds are being made with an instrument? … Braid described a specific set of cause and reactions, and they are reproducible over and over. He wasn’t happy with the trance thing either and called it Mono-idealism or Single Thought, and when yo do what he did you get the same results even now 136 years later because the mind has not evolved or changed one jot… you are right, it hurts my head. I thought I’d been a hypnotist all these years… ah well.

>>>>You want to get your subject/client into the right mind state… but right for what?<<<<>>>If I go into the experience off a enjoying steak and chips, my state will alter. But that doesn’t mean that eating steak and chips is a specific altered state.<<<>>>>If I eat in a restaurant, there is no requirement for the chef to come out of the kitchen an do a eating trance induction on me before serving the food, just as there is no need for a hypnotist to induce ‘trance’ in order to facilitate an experience that has nothing to do with that state.<<<<<>>>When you realise that ‘trance’ has nothing really to do with hypnosis, you become free to focus in on facilitating more specifically tailored experiences for the client rather than taking them needlessly into some generic experience first. You have a choice!<<<<

Trance is too broad range to narrow down. I know the zombie look and thats a form of trance just as REM is another form of trance. Ive been taught that various forms of trance are good for various purposes your trying to accomplish. People go in and out of that zombie look all day and that the same look I see when people are in hypnosis/trance. You know the look.
So I guess what your trying to say is, we dont need to get our subject/client into that zombie/trance state in order to do hypnosis? Well wait a minute, when I see you doing waking hypnosis or hypnosis with out a trance, what is that weird zombified look I see on your subjects face? Looks a little trancy to me. Yes their eyes are not rolling in the back of their head, but you can tell they are definatly not in kansas anymore either. Im a novice, but even I can tell a shift in what I assume is a persons 'state of mind'. I see the shift happening before the hypnotist does anything due to high antisipation that an event will take place and I see a shift due to the events that the hypnotist induces.

Oh by the way, I love analogies and symbols. Thank you for putting things in way that I can grasp, because I really do want to have a firm understanding what you come to realize and learn whats really going on in the mind.

I think I see where you are going with this and feel that Im closing in on what your trying to impart but, I figure its taken hypnostist hundreds of years to get this far, so it might just take a few more blog post before I fully grasp it.

Hi James, I like where you are coming from and agree pretty much with everything you say. However you are mistaken in the believe that people do not consider sales to be a state of mind. In fact there is a whole new branch of “science” called neuromarketing (eg http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com ) that is dedicated to investigating the very thing that you talk about.

Perhaps that demonstrates that advertising is already the impoverished paradigm that you suggest. As Bill Hicks said “if you’re in advertising, go kill yourself”

The frame I have found useful in talking about hypnosis is that it is functionally equivalent to a good story, a theatre performance or a confidence trick. All of them depend on creating a “reality tunnel” (to borrow from Robert Anton Wilson) that leads to “a suspension of dis-belief”

As long as that reality tunnel connects the reality they exist in now, to a reality that is more fun, fulfilling and free then you are on to a winner.

After thinking about your report for a couple days I now think hypnosis uses the placebo effect as one of the main steps in the process and trance is also a necassery step in the process. I think the hypnotee must first believe in you which comes from either your absolute congruents in yourself from experience which makes them buy in or by you showing some mind trick and them coming to their own conclusions that you can hypnotise them. and this belief in you is the placebo effect that what ever comes next is believable or like you say youve opened their beliefs or there believers.
then I think trance is the learning state in were focus down on to one thought by perhaps looking at one spot and our eyes begin to glaze over. and this stage the hypnotist begins to lead there imagination which creates there physiology and experience as you say.
But in all cases I believe they must be in some kind of trance and which I think is our natural learning state. However trance is not hypnosis and utilzation of trance is not hypnosis either. trance utilization is just a person being inside their imagination already and suggestions becoming easier to follow because they imagine the suggestion directly.

But hypnosis needs a a STATE of belief and a Trance in order to learn what suggestions to follow.

hi again I posted here a fewdays go and betwen then a now I came across a concept called fabric of reality -so my q is if you havent gotten bored of these q (I hope you havent) is dont really know how to phrase it correctly but can hypnosis be created by altering the fabric of reality, if that makes sense and I hope it does. thnx a bunch

I used to ask people if they had ever been hypnotized before, now I ask if they have every experienced hypnosis. I strongly agree that hypnosis is not a state of mind, it is an experience. It is true that their perception of reality and thus their subjective reality changes and THAT is the experience. A perfectly natural occurrence that people have on a daily basis, but normally not aware that they have made the reality shift. In NLP term, their map has changed to the extent that they believe the territory has changed.

I have a question for the pros here! I’m a hypnotherapist who does past life regression and Life Between Lives hypnosis for living. I was told that regression needs (according to the traditional hypnosis paradigm) a “deep” state of trance, If it is not trance, I wonder how you guys would describe the different stages of a state that happens during age regression.

To be honest, until I read what you guys wrote, I always took for granted that trance was needed to regress, but it made me question it.

Although if not trance, I wonder what would make some people have access to more vivid regression than others. It cannot be in that regard, a “belief” problem, or could it?

I’m starting to wonder what it is though… Is the ability to regress based only on the acceptance or belief in one’s ability to regress? Is there a chemical change in that state? Or is there a “weird” thing about regression that we don’t understand?

I wonder if there is anyone here who is super knowledgeable about the area of age regression. I’m interested in “what kind of techniques stimulate a state of mind that enables a person to access past memories with most details and clarity. Does anyone here know something interesting about this? Would the CDs sold here be useful to help me achieve my goal?

Would your techniques be helpful in creating more vivid regressions for my clients?

Also, to what would you attribute someone’s inability to regress? Because when one does many regressions, we see that there’s a range in the vividness of the relived experience. Are you aware of the factors that influence regressions, and why some people have a hard time doing it?

I believe that different people have differing hypnotic talents. By this, I mean that people have individual strengths and weaknesses when it comes to manifesting ‘hypnotic phenomena’.

When I work with someone hypnotically, I prefer to work with their strengths rather than trying to make them conform to my template… this is why I like to have a range of tools and approaches for getting clients the changes they want.

If I was a regression specialist I would bare this in mind and realise thatntheir are many ways to recover information – visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, intuitive, metaphorical…

I don’t do past life stuff, but if I did, I would definitely use Clean Space for difficult ‘digital’ clients.

I do not therefore past life regression (and regression for that matter) are a hoax and nothing more than instilling new memories.

Actually I have demonstrated several times that I can instill images and ideas into people which I later confront them with and they swear this is how they’ve seen it, even though these pictures were taken before they were born. I merely suggested them proving that regression is nothing more than installing “false memories”. I even do this whilst they are fully alert, without any induction.

Memories, are encoded to a bare minimum so when you can plant a seed the mind will dress it up to it’s full glory.

Raymond! Have you ever heard of James Randi. His argument is the same, “If I can emulate it , it must be false!”

The thing is we have an imagination that can be manipulated. That doesn’t mean it always is.

I believe in reincarnation and totally disbelieve in regression, because to travel back in time – to regress or relive a past event – is impossible. Einstien proves it with math. But to Recall, to Remember the past is not impossible, even if that past has not occurred in this life span.

And I can no more prove that than you can disprove it my very good friend. Bit like hypnosis really.

@Jon, well that is science for you! If you can’t emulate it with proper tests than it’s a false.

To avoid our imagination to intervene with when judging the actual factual data is to do double blind tests because indeed our imagination does cloud judgement also that of scientists. Our perception is not reality. Like I said to JC I have made people describe an image in great detail that was taken lang before they were born. Without showing or telling them what’s in the picture. In my performance I frame it as Hypnotic Time Travel (PLR) and this “could be used as proof for PLR if I were to believe” but that is not a scientific test because I steered the outcome (knowingly). But many pseudo-scientific people (often hypnotists and NLP practitioners) well base proof on their own experience. Their own experience, like you say, is based on their own imagination — they want to see what they set out to prove.

So Randi’s (actually science’s) approach is the only correct one by taking the scientists imagination out of the equation as well.
Only when know one knows the outcome and they can actually see the outcome then it’s reality. Otherwise its just people’s imagination and imagination is not reality.

If he can emulate something, then it shows that no special psychic/supernatural ability is required to explain the phenomenon in question (whatever that may be), therefor the phenomenon in question cannot be offered as proof of the psychic/supernatural.

Then we are left to question, “why believe a supernatural explanation over a natural one?” You familiar with Occam’s Razor?

@Jon I think science has proven it can create life… Remember Dolly the cloned sheep? Define creating energy?! Energy is pervasive it’s all around us, we can pack energy in a different form but no we cannot create it, we can release it.

I collaborate with an EEG scientist who is the director of an EEG institute. His thesis supervisor was Mario Beauregard, who did studies with measuring monks during meditation and spiritual experiences.

In exchange for a past life regression, he taught me how to use an EEG and designed specific windows in a software for us to evaluate if there is a change of brainwaves that happen when people regress. To also see what happens during an induction..

As a preliminary informal study, I decided to find 10 highly suggestible subjects who can perform hallucination, amnesia, and revivification, and will give them a trigger word to go back in this state. Then practice is 5-6 times, and once I can bring them back in instantly (by testing with amnesia instantly), I will ask them to come back another time.

The next time I meet them, they will sit on the chair, I will hook them up on the EEG… Check their beta, alpha, theta, delta baseline for each for 2 minutes (checking also the Peak Alpha Frequency (PAF), and then trigger the trigger word, and see what happens!

The fact that you are selecting “Well responding candidates” proves that this is not a significant scientific test. First of all you are “primed” as a “researcher” and we know that even us scientists are not biased to our own theories and thus we can look into data and always find a “correlation” that supports our theory.

The only proper tests here are double blind tests in which you the researcher has no idea whatsoever what data you are looking at. This is what makes searching for “trance” a very daunting task because suggestion has become a parameter in the research equation. So the volunteer can never be tested “blind”. And suggestion works we know that many excellent books have been written on that.

And here’s another question that just popped in my mind! How would you guys explain this thing that happen in this delightful Derren Brown thing, where he puts someone in a catotonic trance, without being actually there. Is it only flashes that creates that? Subconscious messages either visual and auditory?

I can’t watch tees videos in the UK… But I already know that I wouldn’t call that state ‘trance’, unless I could think of a useful reason for labelling it such (like wanting to perpetuate a belief in trance, which could be useful in the given context).

For me, a massive part of hypnosis is framing and the management of beliefs. ‘Trance’ is not a ‘thing’, but by talking about it as if it is, we create a belief and this belief can provide a foundation for DOING hypnosis (as, I would argue, it is a ‘thing’ that you do, not a state that you put a person into)

James, are you seriously telling us that you Never fail to get hypnosis…. oh hang on, fine yes, I get it. If you are not doing what the rest of the world has considered to be hypnosis for over 100 years then how could you fail?

I’d like to see the success rates for your students though, now that would be interesting?

This is stage hypnosis. Obviously this young man has been pre-hypnotized and the “state” is triggered through the flashes of the games console. With stage hypnosis (which this Derren Brown Zombie video is) is in my opinion nothing more than conditioning a person for an exciting event.

In all my years of stage show experience I find out that people “act along” in the believe that they are hypnotized.

I did a TV pilot once where a student is “electocuted” when giving wrong answers making the current increase with every answer. Inspired by the Milgram experiment except with a twist that was that a “researcher” administered the shocks facing the student. The student could “Tap out” whenever the pain was too much. After 10-15 minutes the kid was screaming and contracting his arms…. When I opened the so called: “generator” it was completely empty accept for a buzzer and some LEDs… The two leads that connected him to the box were not connected.
The kid was merely convinced by the whole build up (expectation raising), the whole suggestion of the buzzer and the LED showing that the voltage increased. The empty wine cellar with a chair a table and a bright light was more than enough.

Agreed Raymond and if they believe they are ‘in hypnosis then they are ‘in’ or ‘under’ hypnosis [ which of course doesn’t exist, has no existence, isn’t what it seems to be ] which is Not a changed or Alternative reality it Is their reality. And if their reality is to enter a zombie like trance when hypnotised then why not let them, in fact if that is their truth it’s much wiser, better, easier and faster to just let them. It isn’t a fight or a learning curve. In my experience people who who come to hypnotist want to be hypnotised and if someone wants an ice-cream why give them a biscuit?

Man I just cant thank you enough James. Everyone else just keep repeating the same old models which all seem to rely upon hope it will work and youll get one day. But youve given us the secret behind why it works, youve taken away us hoping and givin us a clear direction as to what we are aiming for. Most of what you’ve said id never read before so thank goodness you figured it out. It makes me wonder wheather Milton Ericson even needed to talk in such a weird way, sure it caught them off guard perhaps created a little confusion but now you’ve broken down what were aiming for we can relax and be ourselvs.
I cant wait till everyone’s on the same page and were all explaining hypnosis in your terms. And your idea of the big because has got my mind flowing with so many ideas in hypnosis and out iside the field of hypnosis.
It seems like the English hold the new Giants of hypnosis. as Judy Rees has some good ideas too (though not a hypnotist).
And Im so glad youre such a humble man not boastful or proud its a rare and wonderful trait

Man I just cant thank you enough James. Everyone else just keep repeating the same old models which all seem to rely upon hope it will work and youll get one day. But youve given us the secret behind why it works, youve taken away us hoping and givin us a clear direction as to what we are aiming for. Most of what you’ve said id never read before so thank goodness you figured it out. It makes me wonder wheather Milton Ericson even needed to talk in such a weird way, sure it caught them off guard perhaps created a little confusion but now you’ve broken down what were aiming for we can relax and be ourselvs.
I cant wait till everyone’s on the same page and were all explaining hypnosis in your terms. And your idea of the big because has got my mind flowing with so many ideas in hypnosis and out iside the field of hypnosis.
It seems like the English hold the new Giants of hypnosis. as Judy Rees has some good ideas too (though not a hypnotist).
And Im so glad youre such a humble man not boastful or proud its a rare and wonderful trait

The difference is that an altered perception comes about by showing reality (or facets of it) from a different angle, it doesn’t change your emotional or mental state, just the perception of reality.

When a hustler hustles you he doesn’t put you in a “state called hypnosis” he creates a new reality how you can gain XYZ whatever that is by proving things (convincers) and showing you a different way of looking/doing things (suggestion).

I used hustlers as an example in my thesis on suggestion because they are the true masters of it. The do know what a good suggestion needs in order to change someone’s perspective on something rather ‘weird’ to make it look okay.

It has to do with the psychological definition of a state.
Definition of a state is a mental condition in which the qualities of a state are relatively constant even though the state itself may be dynamic; “a manic state”

A so called “trance” state is very subjective, it differs extremely within people and therefore cannot be qualified as a “state” as such. Hence you would hear psychologist use the phrase “trance like” state, which is a wider collection of different (well documented) states. A day dream state for example, where the neurology simply slows down for a moment to recuperate. Or a deeply concentrated state where most of the brain activity is focussed on achieving a single goal.

Well, I just want to express my understanding of the whole thing and hypnosis as being a novice in the area, therefore not taking any “side” or “camp” about any of this..

My way of thinking about this is all the ways of thinking about this and none of them at the same time. I have taken into account all opinions about hypnosis, but have not gone into the extensive definitions and models and such..

To me hypnosis is simply this – changing the persons believes through the means of imagination.

Now, how you do this, is completely up to you. You can choose to have the person BELIEVE there is a trance like state and by snapping your fingers in front of him and yelling out “sleep” he will go there, or you can choose to have a person KNOW your a hypnotist, therefore they will be more suggestible to your words – and the degree/level of them accepting what you are saying is in direct relation of what they believe hypnosis to be or what hypnotists can do.

When I had a look at hypnosis from a position where I was not the hypnotist or A hypnotist (therefore not bias to any “theory” or “model” of hypnosis) and not the hypnotee (therefore not influenced by suggestion or pre-talk) I noticed one thing – The only thing that the hypnotists is doing is getting the person to imagine and feel – and then weird stuff happens.

The “state” that so many go on about, is nothing more than active imagination.

If you look at any kind of sales, placebo or trance topics; remember all those situations where you were the person who is being sold to, or is taking the placebo, or going into “trance” – what did you do? you imagined.. you imagined that you are using the product that is selling; you imagined feeling better, or recovering, or being healed while taking that placebo; you imagined going into a “state of trance” and you imagined how it will feel like – you have imagined and created a belief which in turn became your reality.
What I’m trying to get at is that every thing we believe in, we need to define first (you cant believe in ‘something’ without defining that ‘something’ for yourself first) and our means of doing that is imagination; and what is hypnotic phenomenon (in my opinion and the way I see it)? it is when a person believes in something therefore makes it their reality.

What is ‘real’ (for us)? it is something we believe/perceive that is based on OUR interpretation, does it HAVE to be EVERYONE’S reality to be real for you? NO!
Can you have a little or big change in beliefs and then change to a set of previous ones? (e.g you hand is stuck, no its not anymore; your arm is as solid as concrete with a metal rod inside it, no its not; etc..) YES.

.. Does GOD exist? ( 😀 I know everyone loves this one.. ) – well, do you want him to? 😀 (in my opinion – if you believe he’s there, it is your reality, to you he does, and what you believe he can do, he can do – to you! because this is your reality).

This is my opinion about the whole thing, AND MY OPINION AND CONCLUSION ALONE/ONLY! I am just explaining my “Reality” :)); and please do not pick me up on semantics because English is not my first language 🙂

From Wikipedia: “An altered state of consciousness (ASC),[1] also named altered state of mind, is any condition which is significantly different from a normal waking beta wave state. The expression was used as early as 1966 by Arnold M. Ludwig[2] and brought into common usage from 1969 by Charles Tart:[3][4] it describes induced changes in one’s mental state, almost always temporary. A synonymous phrase is ‘altered state of awareness’ .”

This raises the question – What isn’t an altered state, altered from what baseline?